In a controversial move, the federal government has appointed David Geier, a prominent vaccine skeptic known for espousing unfounded claims linking immunizations to autism, to conduct a critical study examining potential connections between vaccines and autism. This decision has raised alarms among current and former health officials who spoke anonymously due to concerns of retaliation.
David Geier, along with his father Mark Geier, has previously published research asserting that vaccines increase the risk of autism—a theory that has been thoroughly debunked over decades of scientific investigation. Notably, David Geier faced disciplinary action from Maryland regulators over a decade ago for practicing medicine without a license. Despite this, he is now listed as a data analyst in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) employee directory.
Experts in public health and autism are expressing deep concerns regarding the selection of Geier for this study. They fear that his history of promoting false claims could lead to a flawed analysis with significant repercussions, potentially undermining public trust in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC has consistently emphasized vaccination as the safest and most effective method to control the spread of contagious diseases, including a recent outbreak of measles in Texas and New Mexico.
Alison Singer, president of the Autism Science Foundation, criticized the decision, stating, “It seems the goal of this administration is to prove that vaccines cause autism, even though they don’t. They are starting with the conclusion and looking to prove it. That’s not how science is done.” This sentiment reflects a broader worry that the study could further erode public confidence in vital vaccination programs.
The appointment of Geier comes amid a political landscape where figures like President Donald Trump and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have frequently linked vaccines to autism. During Kennedy's confirmation hearings, he was pressed to renounce his previous claims about vaccines, yet he maintained that he would do so only if presented with contradicting data—despite overwhelming research disproving this link.
Initially, HHS instructed the CDC to conduct the vaccine-autism study. However, recent developments indicate that HHS has redirected the CDC to provide vaccine safety data to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which will now carry out the analysis. Geier has been identified as the individual responsible for analyzing this data, raising further questions about the integrity of the research process.
The CDC has turned over data from four studies published in the 2000s that found no link between vaccines and autism. This includes a significant study conducted in Denmark involving a half-million children, published in 2019, which reinforced the medical consensus that the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine does not increase autism risk.
Peter Hotez, co-director of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital, urged the federal government to concentrate on more credible factors, such as genetics and early brain development, in understanding autism. He criticized the reallocation of research funds toward the discredited vaccine-autism narrative, stating that it detracts from valuable research opportunities.
Despite his appointment, questions remain regarding how Geier, who holds an undergraduate degree and is not a licensed physician, was selected for this role. His previous studies have suggested links between thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative in vaccines, and autism. However, thimerosal has been largely removed from childhood vaccines since 2001, following public concern.
The journal Science and Engineering Ethics retracted a 2015 paper co-authored by the Geiers due to critical errors and undisclosed conflicts of interest linked to their involvement in a mercury-free drugs coalition. David Geier has also faced legal troubles for improperly practicing medicine and was removed from a state autism commission for lacking qualifications.
As the study progresses, experts remain vigilant, cautioning that the implications of appointing a known vaccine skeptic to analyze crucial data may have lasting effects on public health initiatives and the ongoing discourse surrounding vaccine safety. The community continues to advocate for evidence-based research that prioritizes the health and wellbeing of children and public trust in health authorities.
